We are just potential. A part of omnipresence. As is the case with any potential thing, it changing to something else does not alter the aforementioned traits that amount to true perfection in any way. So we can cease to exist (our potential recycled or changed to something else) without it having any effect on the aforementioned traits.

If so, does that not make God dependent upon us?

No.

I didn't say anything about our potential, I used a higher category and referred to our existence.

Do we need to exist in order for god to be perfect?

Clearly, god can be omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient without any of us?

So I guess god just made us for god to be perfect?right?

Let me fill you in on the trap here:

If god is perfect alone, than creating us, doesn't make him anymore perfect, which makes our creation absurd.

If god needs to create us to be perfect, then god is dependent upon us.

And honestly...

Throughout this entire thread, you admit, and then refuse to admit, that:

Your experience of life is different than gods and gods experience of life is different than yours.

When it suits your argument, they are different, when it doesn't suit you argument, they are not.

Certainly real wrote:Non-existence is the negation of everything. You could say that non-existence is the negation of omnipresence. But you can't say omnipresence and non-existence are the same thing.

The negation of everything is a thing. Nonexistence is not a thing. Omnipresence is nonexistence which isn't a thing.

Spatial dimensions being infinite is something that doesn't make any sense to me. I'm going to start a thread in the Math section about infinity.

I still do not see why omnipresence is necessary.

What separates things in Existence? You might say time and space. Do you consider time and space as omnipresent?

Nothing separates things in existence; they are joined. There can only be one thing. We can't have 2 things in existence because if they are mutually exclusive (which is required in order to have 2 things), then they do not exist in relation to each other.

God could not have made the world from nothing. If he made the world, then he made it of himself and it's continuous with him. Pantheism is the only way because if god were disconnected, then he wouldn't exist in relation to the world.

Regarding infinity. Could time and space have come from nothing? If they did not come from nothing, then that leaves only one option. They have always been and will always be.

But that isn't infinite time, but lack of time. Eternity is absence of time; not infinite amounts of it.

This is the same as saying that the dimension of time is infinite. If space isn't infinite, then this is like saying space has a beginning or a border. But what does it border? It cannot be non-existence as that would be paradoxical. So space, or that which contains space, is necessarily infinite.

Space is a fabric, a grid, a construct, an ether. Space is not space like you're thinking. Space cannot be infinite because energy cannot be infinite. What lies beyond space is not anything that we can know. It must contain something... some potential or something that is a thing, but isn't space.

If some omnipresent entity isn't infinite in terms of time and space, then this amounts to something coming from nothing. Does it not?

Time and space is finite, so nothing can be infinite in terms of time and space. Omnipresence may be possible within the finite time and space, but it can't be possible across infinity because it would be nothing.

Oh I see... Using reason to reject reason is paradoxical. I can't argue with that lol. I'm just saying that reason is an artifact of this dual universe and therefore is only applicable to this universe and not outside the universe to what underpins the universe itself. What does the universe exist in relation to? That is where reason fails because there is nothing that is not the universe and therefore there is nothing for the universe to exist in relation to and therefore the existence of the universe is paradoxical when using a dualistic, logic-based reasoning.

Reason isn't just in relation to our universe though. It's in relation to everything that exists.

Universe = everything that exists.

Reason clearly tells us that there is more to Existence than just our universe.

A computer character could not determine what our world looks like based on the information contained within the computer-generated environment. A subset cannot make conclusions about the main set. There is no way for us to know what we exist inside of.

Time and space don't end or start with our universe. That would be paradoxical.

Time and space do not exist; they are artifacts of a construct of fields and ether. Light sees neither time nor space. From our point of view it has taken 13 billion years for light to reach us from the farthest galaxy, but it was instant from light's point of view. Therefore the fact that we see time and space is an artifact/consequence of something... some resistance to travel. I don't know what it is, but I know it's not eternal. If it were, then light wouldn't be able to skirt the rules. For all intents and purposes, we may as well say we live in a computer (constructed environment).

You're moving goal posts. The light has potential to be on, potential to be off, or no potential. That's 3 states of existence.

They are still existent states are they not? That is my point. Nothing goes into non-existence. It either changes, or goes somewhere else. Just as you cannot have something come from nothing, you cannot have something go into nothing.

Yes I suppose so, but what I'm saying with the light is "no potential" is not anything that ever existed. I think we need to differentiate between negative existence (potential to exist) and nonexistence (no potential).

They mean the same thing. All-existing = no-existing. Just like eternity is not infinite time, but absence of time, likewise infinite space is not infinite amounts of space, but lack of space.

One might be able to exist everywhere in finite space, just like a computer exists everywhere in a game world, but the computer couldn't exist everywhere in the real world or there could be no computer nor game.

Ecmandu wrote:Everyone except god (per your formulation of what god is), knows what it's like to not be god. God can know that other people aren't god, but unless god isn't god, god can't know precisely what it's like to not be god. Everyone else can precisely know what it's like to not be god. This means that there is more true knowledge in existence than one being can know.

What if there is only one being (god) playing the roles of all other beings (us)? How do you feel about that idea?

If god is dreaming, then everything is god (omnipresence) and god knows all (omniscience) and god has all the power because there is nothing that is not god in god's dream. God is the guy sitting at the bar having a sword fight with himself with toothpicks because he's bored lol

Certainly real wrote:Everything about us can be broken down to information. Right ? We can label every aspect of us and we use language to communicate these things. It is always the case that knowable things ultimately amount to some kind of information. Do we agree on this crucial point ? All types of information can be understood and deciphered fully if the appropriate and adequate senses / tools / recievers / receptables are in place. Agreed ?

Information and knowledge are not the same. Information does not have to be understood whereas knowledge does Knowledge is therefore a subset of information : all knowledge is information but not all information is knowledge

That's a good point. So being is understanding is experiencing. Knowing and being are the same: I think therefore I am lol

Ecmandu wrote:I didn't say anything about our potential, I used a higher category and referred to our existence.

Alright then I'll focus on us and not our potential.

Do we need to exist in order for god to be perfect?

No. Us existing does not make God any more or less Perfect, Infinite, Omnipresent.

Clearly, god can be omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient without any of us?

Yes

So I guess god just made us for god to be perfect?right?

We don't know God's reasoning because we're not God. The outline is that whatever it does, it does perfectly. God was perfect and it created us, no paradoxes in this. You make it sound like God needed to create us to accomplish being perfect. If that is what you're implying, that is paradoxical.

We are in agreement on this. Pantheism entails that God is Existence. Which is essentially saying that God is Omnipresent. So why do you consider omnipresence as amounting to non-existence?

The negation of everything is a thing. Nonexistence is not a thing. Omnipresence is nonexistence which isn't a thing.

The negation of everything is not a thing though. When you negate everything, are you still left with a thing? The negation of everything = non-existence and I agree, non-existence isn't a thing. It's absurd.

Omnipresence has clear meaning. Non-existence is the negation of meaning. Non-omnipresence is the negation of meaning. Omnipresence is not equal to non-omnipresence. That which is meaningful and that which is meaningless are not equal.

But that isn't infinite time, but lack of time. Eternity is absence of time; not infinite amounts of it.

How does time come into existence from a state of non-existence? Consider the following:

Universe A is endlessUniverse B is without time

Do they mean the same thing?

A will never run out of time. B never had time to begin with. Do you agree that there is a clear difference between A and B?

Time and space is finite, so nothing can be infinite in terms of time and space. Omnipresence may be possible within the finite time and space, but it can't be possible across infinity because it would be nothing.

Infinity and nothing are not the same. Consider the following:

Existence A is infiniteExistence B is nothing/non-existent

A has always existed and will always exist. B has never existed and will never exist.So, are A and B the same?

Universe = everything that exists.

If the universe amounts to the following traits: Omnipotence, Infiniteness, Omnipresence, then the universe = everything that exists. If not, then the universe is not everything that exists.

A computer character could not determine what our world looks like based on the information contained within the computer-generated environment. A subset cannot make conclusions about the main set. There is no way for us to know what we exist inside of.

In a 2D world that contains 2D rational agents, those agents won't know what it's like to be 3D. But they will still understand that Existence is necessarily Perfect, Infinite and Omnipresent (in length, width and time)

What's the difference? I think if you know perfectly what it's like to be that thing, then you are that thing.

Not necessarily. If you have all the relevant senses/tools/capacity/potential to fully understand all the information, then you can know what it's like to be thing X without actually being thing X.

To know what it's like to be a cat, I'd have to have all the sensory input that a cat would have

True.

so I'd be the cat.

It's true that you'd have to have all the potential and the capacity that the cat had. But this doesn't amount to being the cat. You can be more than the cat. So long as your capacity and potential is not deficient in relation to the cat's, then you can fully know what it's like to be the cat without ever becoming the cat.

If god is perfect alone, than creating us, doesn't make him anymore perfect, which makes our creation absurd.

Why? You're imperfect. You can do something that makes you neither more or less imperfect. Have you done something absurd?

God is perfect. God creates us. This does not make God any more or less perfect. What's the problem?

If god needs to create us to be perfect, then god is dependent upon us.

A) God doesn't need to create us to be perfect. B) God is Perfect and it created us. In no way does B amount to: C) God needed to create us to be perfect. A is true, but B just happens to be the case.

And honestly...

Throughout this entire thread, you admit, and then refuse to admit, that:

Your experience of life is different than gods and gods experience of life is different than yours.

When it suits your argument, they are different, when it doesn't suit you argument, they are not.

You're twisting yourself in strings of contradiction and absurdity.

Show me where I did this.

Actually, by definition, everything god does is perfect, which means creating us is part of that necessary perfection. Are you going to challenge gods perfection by saying that god is perfect by not making us? So what you say is that god is both perfect by not creating us and by creating us.

Since, in a practical sense, every being besides god would and wants to commit suicide (they just don't have the means that they'd use). I would hardly call gods creation perfect. Remember, by your theology, god can only create imperfect beings forever and ever and ever.

You define perfection as the ability to ONLY create imperfection, forever and ever and ever.

This means god can't even create gods own perfection!

How does the statement:

Your experience of life is different than gods and gods experience of life is different than yours.

Cause you to not just stop your argument?And cause you to say "where did I say that?"

It's a very simple statement, and you literally look silly with your "acrobatics" to avoid such a pure statement, naked in its truth.

Ecmandu wrote:Actually, by definition, everything god does is perfect, which means creating us is part of that necessary perfection. Are you going to challenge gods perfection by saying that god is perfect by not making us? So what you say is that god is both perfect by not creating us and by creating us.

Yes, everything God does is perfect (maximally good all things considered). There's a clear distinction between:

1) Being Perfect and doing Perfectly 2) Doing something to become Perfect

The Perfect being remains Perfect provided that its traits that amount to true Perfection are unaltered. It's creation of us does not alter its traits in any way.

2 is absurd. 1 is not. God created us, so it's something that amounts to a maximally good outcome all things considered. This isn't the only possible maximally good outcome with regards to our potential. It is one of many. Omnibenevolance can be exercised in endless ways.

Since, in a practical sense, every being besides god would and wants to commit suicide (they just don't have the means that they'd use). I would hardly call gods creation perfect. Remember, by your theology, god can only create imperfect beings forever and ever and ever.

You can't consider all things because you lack omniscience. You can't demonstrate how what you describe would ultimately amount to an objective instance of the maximum good not being brought about all things considered.

You define perfection as the ability to ONLY create imperfection, forever and ever and ever.

I define true Perfection as Omnipotent/Omniscient, Infinite, Omnipresent and Omnibenevolant (always doing that which brings about the maximum amount of good all things considered). Creating imperfect beings can amount to something maximally good all things considered.

This means god can't even create gods own perfection!

God can't create another God. That's paradoxical.

How does the statement:

Your experience of life is different than gods and gods experience of life is different than yours.

Cause you to not just stop your argument?And cause you to say "where did I say that?"

You exist non-omnipresently whilst God exists Omnipresently. Are the Omnipresent and the non-omnipresent equal? No. So the potency/quality of their experiences are not the same are they?

Gods experience of existence is different than yoursYour experience of existence is different than gods

This refutes omnipresence, it doesn't support it.

God has to know exactly what it's like to not be god in order to know exactly what it's like to be anyone besides god.

Either god isn't god, or you are god.

Both statements you consider absurd (though through indirect means, you've several times made god claims about yourself - which is why I liken you to the error free cult leader)

You're also playing serious word games around another oh so simple statement ...

Per your theology, it is impossible for god to make perfect beings, or anything perfect in a being (because to even have a slight perfection means that god isn't above them in that one area - which to you is a contradiction) there is no maximal goodness to creating beings that can never achieve represent or embody perfection of any sort... it can only be described as minimal goodness or worse.

Gods experience of existence is different than yoursYour experience of existence is different than gods

This refutes omnipresence, it doesn't support it.

God has to know exactly what it's like to not be god in order to know exactly what it's like to be anyone besides god.

Either god isn't god, or you are god.

Both statements you consider absurd (though through indirect means, you've several times made god claims about yourself - which is why I liken you to the error free cult leader)

You're also playing serious word games around another oh so simple statement ...

Per your theology, it is impossible for god to make perfect beings, or anything perfect in a being (because to even have a slight perfection means that god isn't above them in that one area - which to you is a contradiction) there is no maximal goodness to creating beings that can never achieve represent or embody perfection of any sort... it can only be described as minimal goodness or worse.

God is God and I'm a part of God. God knows me fully whilst I don't know it fully.

God can know what my experiences are like because I am a part of God. I cannot know what God's experiences are like because I'm not God, I'm just a part of God. I don't have the capacity to know what being omnipresent is like whereas that which is omnipresent has the full capacity to know what non-omnipresence is like. You fail to pay sufficient attention to this point.

The notion of Existence as not being one Omnipresent thing is clearly paradoxical and you know it.

With Existence being omnipresent, omnipotence and omniscience are meaningful. You can't fault one of these omni concepts without faulting the other. No rational agent will ever question or doubt the nature of Existence as being Omnipresent.

Just because no other being other than God can be Perfect, doesn't mean the potential isn't there for them to become very good. Consider infinity in length and width. Just because nothing other than God is Infinite, doesn't mean you can't have really large things. You can even have semi-infinitely large things. That is the nature of Existence. It can sustain all things things endlessly.

I don't have the capacity to know what being omnipresent is like whereas that which is omnipresent has the full capacity to know what non-omnipresence is like. You fail to pay sufficient attention to this point.

Let's work on this bolder section first. You can't know what it's like to be omnipresent because no being can, because if we attempt to break the concept down, it solves as god being unable to be god in order to know exactly what it's like to not be god.Existence is fragmented

The contradiction is not with me, it's always been with you when you say, "that which is omnipresent has the full capacity to know what being non-omnipresent is like." No! That's a contradiction.It would have to cease being omnipresent, and nothing more, which by your definition it never does. I've been addressing this point the whole time.

You just keep trying, as if you say it enough times, that magically it's not a fatal contradiction to your hypothesis.

I don't have the capacity to know what being omnipresent is like whereas that which is omnipresent has the full capacity to know what non-omnipresence is like. You fail to pay sufficient attention to this point.

Let's work on this bolder section first.

Ok

You can't know what it's like to be omnipresent because no being can

,

That which is omnipresent can.

because if we attempt to break the concept down, it solves as god being unable to be god in order to know exactly what it's like to not be god.

How? If you define Existence as being non-omnipresent, you're committing to what is blatantly paradoxical. Do we agree on this?

Existence is fragmented

So does that mean that you don't see Existence as Omnipresent?

The contradiction is not with me, it's always been with you when you say, "that which is omnipresent has the full capacity to know what being non-omnipresent is like." No! That's a contradiction.It would have to cease being omnipresent, and nothing more, which by your definition it never does. I've been addressing this point the whole time.

No it doesn't have to cease being Omnipresent because it occupies all non-omnipresent/non-infinite spaces/worlds by virtue of it being infinite/omnipresent.Can you counter this bold point?

You just keep trying, as if you say it enough times, that magically it's not a fatal contradiction to your hypothesis.

I gave you a description of how everything is a part of Existence and how Existence is Omnipresent. And I gave you clear examples of how whilst Existence is clearly and necessarily Omnipresent and Infinite, we are clearly finite and non-omnipresent.

So I gave you clear examples of how the infinite can fully sustain the finite thereby having full reach and access to the finite (meaning that it fully knows what all finite entities and semi-finite entities amount to in full)

You've yet to give me a contradiction free description of the nature of Existence.

I don't have the capacity to know what being omnipresent is like whereas that which is omnipresent has the full capacity to know what non-omnipresence is like. You fail to pay sufficient attention to this point.

Let's work on this bolder section first.

Ok

You can't know what it's like to be omnipresent because no being can

,

That which is omnipresent can.

because if we attempt to break the concept down, it solves as god being unable to be god in order to know exactly what it's like to not be god.

How? If you define Existence as being non-omnipresent, you're committing to what is blatantly paradoxical. Do we agree on this?

Existence is fragmented

So does that mean that you don't see Existence as Omnipresent?

The contradiction is not with me, it's always been with you when you say, "that which is omnipresent has the full capacity to know what being non-omnipresent is like." No! That's a contradiction.It would have to cease being omnipresent, and nothing more, which by your definition it never does. I've been addressing this point the whole time.

No it doesn't have to cease being Omnipresent because it occupies all non-omnipresent/non-infinite spaces/worlds by virtue of it being infinite/omnipresent.Can you counter this bold point?

You just keep trying, as if you say it enough times, that magically it's not a fatal contradiction to your hypothesis.

I gave you a description of how everything is a part of Existence and how Existence is Omnipresent. And I gave you clear examples of how whilst Existence is clearly and necessarily Omnipresent and Infinite, we are clearly finite and non-omnipresent.

So I gave you clear examples of how the infinite can fully sustain the finite thereby having full reach and access to the finite (meaning that it fully knows what all finite entities and semi-finite entities amount to in full)

You've yet to give me a contradiction free description of the nature of Existence.

I already countered your bold point, which is just the same contradiction stated as truth as before.

There must be otherness in order for there to be existents, this otherness is in the form of fragmentation of presence. A lack of fragmentation of presence allows for no otherness.

You look at omnipresence as a tiered hierarchy instead of what it actually is, the same one thing in everything, which is nothing.

Ecmandu wrote:I already countered your bold point, which is just the same contradiction stated as truth as before.

You didn't. What you asserted essentially amounted the following: Being a part of omnipresence means you're not a part of omnipresence. What you suggest, amounts to a paradox and your attempt to define Existence makes this clear.

There must be otherness in order for there to be existents, this otherness is in the form of fragmentation of presence. A lack of fragmentation of presence allows for no otherness.

You look at omnipresence as a tiered hierarchy instead of what it actually is, the same one thing in everything, which is nothing.

If there is a god, by laws of logic, it cannot be omnipresent.

The same one thing in everything (No problems with this sentence. No paradoxes)The same one thing in everything which isnothing. If you can't see how this (your definition of existence) amounts to a paradox, then we'll have to agree to disagree.

You recognise the necessity of the same one thing in everything but you deny omnipresence. Why? What problems did you see with my argument regarding varying levels of potency? God being the most potent (infinite) and everything else (semi-infinite, finite) being less potent versions of it.

Ecmandu wrote:I already countered your bold point, which is just the same contradiction stated as truth as before.

You didn't. What you asserted essentially amounted the following: Being a part of omnipresence means you're not a part of omnipresence. What you suggest, amounts to a paradox and your attempt to define Existence makes this clear.

There must be otherness in order for there to be existents, this otherness is in the form of fragmentation of presence. A lack of fragmentation of presence allows for no otherness.

You look at omnipresence as a tiered hierarchy instead of what it actually is, the same one thing in everything, which is nothing.

If there is a god, by laws of logic, it cannot be omnipresent.

The same one thing in everything (No problems with this sentence. No paradoxes)The same one thing in everything which isnothing. If you can't see how this (your definition of existence) amounts to a paradox, then we'll have to agree to disagree.

You recognise the necessity of the same one thing in everything but you deny omnipresence. Why? What problems did you see with my argument regarding varying levels of potency? God being the most potent (infinite) and everything else (semi-infinite, finite) being less potent versions of it.

Have an open mind. End dogma and you'll see where you're going wrong.

No I used the definition of omnipresence to prove that it's fragmented, even for a hypothetical god, who also needs otherness to perceive itself. Otherness to perceive existence is a higher law than god, logic is GREATER than god, god needs us, is dependent upon us, to perceive god. Logic is the highest, not a being within logic. Logic is not self aware.

Of all your straw man replies thus far, this ones the worst.

If the same thing is in everything (a hypothetical), this solves as everything being exactly the same, which equals nothing.

If presence is fragmented, there's no contradiction.

Youre the one blatantly posting direct contradictions as truth. I don't open my mind to brainwashers

Ecmandu wrote:No I used the definition of omnipresence to prove that it's fragmented, even for a hypothetical god, who also needs otherness to perceive itself. Otherness to perceive existence is a higher law than god, logic is GREATER than god, god needs us, is dependent upon us, to perceive god. Logic is the highest, not a being within logic. Logic is not self aware.

Of all your straw man replies thus far, this ones the worst.

If the same thing is in everything (a hypothetical), this solves as everything being exactly the same, which equals nothing.

If presence is fragmented, there's no contradiction.

Youre the one blatantly posting direct contradictions as truth. I don't open my mind to brainwashers

I gave you a logical distinction between levels of potency. Everything is the same thing but of varying levels of potency. If you don't accept Existence as necessarily Omnipresent, then we'll have to agree to disagree.

Ecmandu wrote:No I used the definition of omnipresence to prove that it's fragmented, even for a hypothetical god, who also needs otherness to perceive itself. Otherness to perceive existence is a higher law than god, logic is GREATER than god, god needs us, is dependent upon us, to perceive god. Logic is the highest, not a being within logic. Logic is not self aware.

Of all your straw man replies thus far, this ones the worst.

If the same thing is in everything (a hypothetical), this solves as everything being exactly the same, which equals nothing.

If presence is fragmented, there's no contradiction.

Youre the one blatantly posting direct contradictions as truth. I don't open my mind to brainwashers

I gave you a logical distinction between levels of potency. Everything is the same thing but of varying levels of potency. If you don't accept Existence as necessarily Omnipresent, then we'll have to agree to disagree.

You're avoiding the core issue with omnipresence again.

God, just like us, needs other to exist, in order to perceive being existant. This not only means that presence needs to be fragmented, it means that god is DEPEDANT upon us, all of us, like a little baby ... in order to be god.

I only replied after the last post because I'm concerned that you're trying to brainwash people into believing that you're perfect by being "in" with god, which is the technique all cult leaders use.

Ecmandu wrote:No I used the definition of omnipresence to prove that it's fragmented, even for a hypothetical god, who also needs otherness to perceive itself. Otherness to perceive existence is a higher law than god, logic is GREATER than god, god needs us, is dependent upon us, to perceive god. Logic is the highest, not a being within logic. Logic is not self aware.

Of all your straw man replies thus far, this ones the worst.

If the same thing is in everything (a hypothetical), this solves as everything being exactly the same, which equals nothing.

If presence is fragmented, there's no contradiction.

Youre the one blatantly posting direct contradictions as truth. I don't open my mind to brainwashers

I gave you a logical distinction between levels of potency. Everything is the same thing but of varying levels of potency. If you don't accept Existence as necessarily Omnipresent, then we'll have to agree to disagree.

You're avoiding the core issue with omnipresence again.

God, just like us, needs other to exist, in order to perceive being existant. This not only means that presence needs to be fragmented, it means that god is DEPEDANT upon us, all of us, like a little baby ... in order to be god.

I only replied after the last post because I'm concerned that you're trying to brainwash people into believing that you're perfect by being "in" with god, which is the technique all cult leaders use.

I need to add to this, that god cannot exist without otherness. This is logic. Logic is more powerful than god. Logic is not aware of itself.

We are in agreement on this. Pantheism entails that God is Existence. Which is essentially saying that God is Omnipresent. So why do you consider omnipresence as amounting to non-existence?

God is omnipresent within God, but not outside of God or else what is not-God would also be God. Omnipresence within finiteness is possible, but it's infinite omnipresence where I'm having issues.

The negation of everything is a thing. Nonexistence is not a thing. Omnipresence is nonexistence which isn't a thing.

The negation of everything is not a thing though. When you negate everything, are you still left with a thing?

Yes the negation of everything is a thing. The negation of you is everything that is not you and the negation of everything that is not you is you. Negation represents the negative state of a dipole, so negative north would be south and neither could exist without the other because their existence is the manifestation of their relationship. Now if we say that north is omnipresent, then there is no room left for south and therefore north also couldn't exist.

Non-existence is the negation of meaning.

The negation of meaning is still meaningful and I'd describe nonexistence as absence of existence rather than a negative state of it.

Non-omnipresence is the negation of meaning.

Well, non-omnipresence is any presence less than ubiquitous. I am non-omnipresent.

Omnipresence is not equal to non-omnipresence.

I think the ubiquitous is equivalent to the absence. If every direction were up, then direction is meaningless. If time were infinite, then time would have no meaning.

That which is meaningful and that which is meaningless are not equal.

They are complementary and codependent.

But that isn't infinite time, but lack of time. Eternity is absence of time; not infinite amounts of it.

How does time come into existence from a state of non-existence?

It doesn't because there is no such thing as time outside the relationship of one thing to another thing. It takes me 1/24 revolution of the earth to drive to the next city, so the concept of time is just a placeholder for a ratio. If there is nothing around to compare time to, then time has no meaning.

Consider the following:

Universe A is endlessUniverse B is without time

Do they mean the same thing?

A will never run out of time. B never had time to begin with. Do you agree that there is a clear difference between A and B?

If universe A is endless, then it is also beginningless since end and beginning are just arbitrary in relation to direction. Something that has neither beginning nor end is not relative to time and time has no bearing on it, so it's independent of time meaning that time is meaningless and nonexistent... which is the defined state of universe B, so they are equivalent. Infinite time and lack of time are the same thing.

Time and space is finite, so nothing can be infinite in terms of time and space. Omnipresence may be possible within the finite time and space, but it can't be possible across infinity because it would be nothing.

Infinity and nothing are not the same. Consider the following:

Existence A is infiniteExistence B is nothing/non-existent

A has always existed and will always exist. B has never existed and will never exist.So, are A and B the same?

I think it's a bad way to present the problem. Existence A is timeless (absence of time, but existent) and Existence B is nonexistent. So you're saying one exists and the other doesn't then ask me if they are the same and I don't think that's what you meant to do. I'm not saying timelessness is nonexistence, but nonexistence of time. I'm not saying that because something has been around forever that it doesn't exist, but if it has, then time doesn't exist because time is completely irrelevant to the thing and irrelevant things do not exist by definition because they are ir+relational like the pink elephant sitting next to me.

Universe = everything that exists.

If the universe amounts to the following traits: Omnipotence, Infiniteness, Omnipresence, then the universe = everything that exists. If not, then the universe is not everything that exists.

You could be right, but eventually we're going to come down to the one thing that fundamentally exists in relation to absolutely nothing else otherwise it's a Russian Doll of smaller universes inside larger ones infinitely, which ironically is saying the same thing because relation to the infinite is relation to nothing. What difference would it make? If north were ubiquitous such that it completely displaced south, then south doesn't exist due to absence, but the north also doesn't exist due to ubiquitousness. What difference does it make which is which?

If the universe is finite, then what is outside? Nothing because there is nothing that is not the universe.If the universe is infinite, then what is outside? Nothing because it goes on forever.

What difference does it make?

So now what?

Obviously nothing must be in some way productive as its polar opposite is the universe and all that exists. Infinity doesn't solve anything and if anything, it paints over the problem by obfuscating it in a cloud of the unimaginable (nothing - who can imagine nothing).

A computer character could not determine what our world looks like based on the information contained within the computer-generated environment. A subset cannot make conclusions about the main set. There is no way for us to know what we exist inside of.

In a 2D world that contains 2D rational agents, those agents won't know what it's like to be 3D. But they will still understand that Existence is necessarily Perfect, Infinite and Omnipresent (in length, width and time)

Where did your term "perfect" come from? What is perfect? Perfect in relation to what? Using "perfect" is like saying "optimized" without saying optimized for what. Taller than what? Hotter than what? Freedom from what? You can't just have freedom without specifying freedom from what. Freedom from law is not freedom from crime and freedom from crime is being shackled by law. You're trying to objectify relative terms as if they had abstract meaning. Time is another illustration of that as is space. You're yanking out relative concepts and trying to make them stand on their own.

To know what it's like to be a cat, I'd have to have all the sensory input that a cat would have

True.

so I'd be the cat.

It's true that you'd have to have all the potential and the capacity that the cat had. But this doesn't amount to being the cat. You can be more than the cat. So long as your capacity and potential is not deficient in relation to the cat's, then you can fully know what it's like to be the cat without ever becoming the cat.

In order to know what it's like to be a cat, I'd have to have all the sensory input of a cat and no other input. I couldn't know that I am god too or I wouldn't know what it's like to be a cat. The only way to know what it's like to be a cat is to be a cat.

This fits with Brahman, but not Yahweh. Brahman knows what it's like to be everything because he is everything, but Yahweh can't know much of anything since he isn't anything but some abstractness outside the universe (whatever that means) who claims knowledge of things he's never been and all sorts of paradoxical powers. If Yahweh made the universe, then he made it from himself and became the Brahman because he could not have made something from nothing, but rather he put something where nothing used to be (ie himself) and arranged it in interesting patterns... or maybe he let it go randomly for a surprise (that's what I think - lack of purpose is the purpose otherwise there would be no purpose because why go through the trouble of making a movie you've seen before).

Ecmandu wrote:God, just like us, needs other to exist, in order to perceive being existant. This not only means that presence needs to be fragmented, it means that god is DEPEDANT upon us, all of us, like a little baby ... in order to be god.

I think that is essentially it and better-worded than I could have done. God needs "other" in order for him to know he exists. I don't think there is anyway around that, but what is "other"? What is not-god? What is the condition upon which god exists?

Ecmandu wrote:God, just like us, needs other to exist, in order to perceive being existant. This not only means that presence needs to be fragmented, it means that god is DEPEDANT upon us, all of us, like a little baby ... in order to be god.

I think that is essentially it and better-worded than I could have done. God needs "other" in order for him to know he exists. I don't think there is anyway around that, but what is "other"? What is not-god? What is the condition upon which god exists?

I have to say, I used other because it's more concrete and also true.

The other for god, as I've stated many times in this thread is to not know EXACTLY what it's like to be all beings, or any being for that matter.

I also want to compliment you on the idea that existence is relationship. I hadn't been exposed to that specific thought and I find it beautiful and elegant.

Ecmandu wrote:God, just like us, needs other to exist, in order to perceive being existant. This not only means that presence needs to be fragmented, it means that god is DEPEDANT upon us, all of us, like a little baby ... in order to be god.

I think that is essentially it and better-worded than I could have done. God needs "other" in order for him to know he exists. I don't think there is anyway around that, but what is "other"? What is not-god? What is the condition upon which god exists?

I have to say, I used other because it's more concrete and also true.

The other for god, as I've stated many times in this thread is to not know EXACTLY what it's like to be all beings, or any being for that matter.

The problem with the self/other relationship is that they are secretly one.

The theory of the organism-environment system starts with the proposition that in any functional sense "organism" and "environment" are inseparable and form only one unitary system. The organism cannot exist without the environment, and the environment has descriptive properties only if it is connected to the organism. Although for practical purposes we do separate organism and environment, this common-sense starting point leads in psychological theory to problems which cannot be solved. Therefore, separation of organism and environment cannot be the basis of any scientific explanation of human behavior. The theory leads to a reinterpretation of basic problems in many fields of inquiry and makes possible the definition of mental phenomena without their reduction either to neural or biological activity or to separate mental functions. According to the theory, mental activity is activity of the whole organism-environment system, and the traditional psychological concepts describe only different aspects of organization of this system. Therefore, mental activity cannot be separated from the nervous system, but the nervous system is only one part of the organism-environment system. This problem will be dealt with in detail in the second part of the article. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10333975

Philosophical Explorations 34:90-100 (1999)The theory of the organism-environment system: III. Role of efferent influences on receptors in the formation of knowledge

It is argued, on the basis of experimental evidence and theoretical considerations, that the senses are not transmitters of environmental information, but they create a direct connection between the organism and the environment, which makes the development of a dynamic living system, the organism - environment system, possible.https://philpapers.org/rec/JARTTO-2

We argue that these phenomena involve previously unconsidered aspects of cognition and (motor) behavior, which are rooted in the action-perception cycle characterizing the whole living system.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26539155

In biology, the unitary approach makes it explicit why no organism can be thought of without an environment. An organism as a skin bag is no functioning system; it may be such only together with the relevant environmental parts. The same applies to neurophysiology or “cognitive” brain research: without the rest of the world the nervous system is not a system at all; neither is the agent of the behavior a part of the body, such as the brain.

I wonder if that applies to god as well: is he one with his environment and suffering illusion that he is not in order to manifest as a being in a self/other relationship? Or did he transcend the illusion and learn himself out of existence because he's god and all-knowing? Of course, if he is illusory as we are, then can it be said that he exists?

Further, if the other underpins god, then what underpins the unitary god/other relationship? Does god have a god? What about that god: does it have a god too? Is it an infinite series of Russian Dolls each giving the other context?

I also want to compliment you on the idea that existence is relationship. I hadn't been exposed to that specific thought and I find it beautiful and elegant.

We have Alan Watts to thank for that, though there is no guarantee I wouldn't have thought of it on my own in infinite time lol. I'm just happy I was able to recognize it as meaningful when he said it.

But I'm expanding from there and asking what is not relationship? What is fundamental? Can anything be fundamental? What is relationship if nothing exists prior to the relationship? What is the god/other relationship predicated on? Eventually we're going to come down to nothing, I suspect. Nothing... the total absence of anything is somehow productive. Alan said that too, but I haven't gotten my head around it yet. How can nothing substantiate something? Is it just by providing context? But there is nothing there to provide context, except absence of things, but is absence of things a thing? I don't know.

But regardless how big the universe is, even if it's infinite, there is still nothing on the outside and that seems in some way meaningful. What is the opposite of nothing? Is it something or is it all things? Is all things really all things or just possible things? And possible relative to what? What a brain twister!